Page 40 of 233 FirstFirst ... 3038394041425090140 ... LastLast
Results 586 to 600 of 3483
Like Tree211Likes

Thread: The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

  1. #586
    Eds
    Eds is offline
    International Debutant Eds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,163
    Quote Originally Posted by MrPrez View Post
    For me it's:

    Hobbs
    Hutton
    Bradman
    Tendulkar
    Compton
    Sobers
    Gilchrist
    Proctor
    Warne
    Marshall
    Lillee/Larwood/some West Indian quick/some other bowler I'm not thinking of
    Quote Originally Posted by MrPrez View Post
    Yeah, he's way overrated due to bodyline. If it hadn't taken place, he wouldn't be near ATXI discussions.
    Righto.
    "If that Swann lad is the future of spin bowling in this country, then we're ****ed." - Nasser Hussain, 1997.

  2. #587
    State Vice-Captain MrPrez's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,092
    Yeah, basically what I was saying is that the last spot is open depending on how I feel on the day. The point is that bodyline did happen and it has pushed him to being around ATG level, but whether he deserves a spot in a world XI is way more debatable than some care to believe.

    Some days I'll lean towards a more consistently-strong bowler, but on others I'd go for a more enigmatic bowler.

    I wasn't saying he isn't ATGXI level, just that I do see where you're coming from.
    @CowsCorner - 202 followers and counting!

    Disclaimer: I am a biased South African. Anything I say is likely to have something in it that ultimately favours the Proteas.

  3. #588
    Eds
    Eds is offline
    International Debutant Eds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,163
    Quote Originally Posted by MrPrez View Post
    The point is that bodyline did happen and it has pushed him to being around ATG level
    This is why I thought your previous post was very odd, ftr.

    But even so, I rate Larwood more than most, he'd still be no-where near my ATG XI, ATG A XI, ATG B XI etc.

  4. #589
    International Vice-Captain kyear2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    w.i
    Posts
    4,215
    One series and a good f/c career cannot make some one the greatest ever and counter an other wise ordinary test career.
    Aus. XI
    Simpson^ | Hayden | Bradman | Chappell^ | Ponting | Border* | Gilchrist+ | Davidson3 | Warne4^ | Lillee1 | McGrath2


    W.I. XI
    Greenidge | Hunte | Richards^ | Headley* | Lara^ | Sobers5^ | Walcott+ | Marshall1 | Ambrose2 | Holding3 | Garner4

    S.A. XI
    Richards^ | Smith*^ | Amla | Pollock | Kallis5^ | Nourse | Cameron+ | Procter3 | Steyn1 | Tayfield4 | Donald2

    Eng. XI
    Hobbs | Hutton*^ | Hammond^ | Compton | Barrington | Botham5^ | Knott | Trueman1 | Laker4 | Larwood2 | Barnes3


  5. #590
    International Captain watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,110
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    One series and a good f/c career cannot make some one the greatest ever and counter an other wise ordinary test career.
    And Bradman rates Ken Farnes as the better fast bowler of the two.

  6. #591
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,703
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    And Bradman rates Ken Farnes as the better fast bowler of the two.
    Bradman - clearly the most unbiased of 1930s cricket sources.
    My sworn enemy:
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    I hate s smith.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    I give out points for style of which Steve(n) Smith has none.

  7. #592
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,703
    Quote Originally Posted by kyear2 View Post
    One series and a good f/c career cannot make some one the greatest ever and counter an other wise ordinary test career.
    His Test career was far from ordinary.

  8. #593
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,724
    Quote Originally Posted by rvd619323 View Post
    Bradman - clearly the most unbiased of 1930s cricket sources.
    indeed

    He probably thought he was a better bowler than Larwood.
    ~ Cribbertarian ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  9. #594
    International Debutant Jager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The land of Siddle
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by watson View Post
    And Bradman rates Ken Farnes as the better fast bowler of the two.
    Bradman rates Morris and Richards as the best openers ever, do you accept his word for that as well?
    Oh for a strong arm and a walking stick

  10. #595
    International Vice-Captain Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,902
    Quote Originally Posted by Jager View Post
    Bradman rates Morris and Richards as the best openers ever, do you accept his word for that as well?
    I accept his rationale behind selecting them. He saw Barry Richards play plenty of FC cricket at South Aust, and he made some big innings against a WA bowling attack of the calibre of Lillee and McKenzie. He selected Barry Richards on the basis of needing to score quickly enough to bowl the opponents out twice. Morris was also a fluent scorer, and he was adamant on having a L/R opening combo. There aren't a heap of great LH openers: Morris, Lawry, Fredericks, Langer, Hayden. Morris had some brilliant series under Bradman's leadership, his first three series he averaged 72, 52 and 87 (Invinsibles tour).

    Bradman's team was:

    Richards
    Morris
    Bradman
    Tendulkar
    Sobers
    Tallon
    Lindwall
    Lillee
    Bedser
    O'Reilly
    Grimmett

    I couldn't understand two things about this team:

    Tallon never (really) batted at 6, he wasn't a top 6 batsman.

    Considering there is Lindwall and Lillee to open the bowling, plus two spinners, why play Bedser? Would be better to play Imran (or Miller) instead to strengthen both the batting and the bowling.

    Thought Bradman's XI would look better like this:

    Richards
    Morris
    Bradman
    Tendulkar
    Sobers
    Imran (or Miller, or even Botham or Kapil)
    Tallon
    Lindwall
    Lillee
    O'Reilly
    Grimmett
    I'll never fear you, buddy.

  11. #596
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,240
    Yeah it would look better/safer but I'm pretty certain that Bradman figured that the team only needed 5 batsman because the batsman (in particular the number 3) was so awesome.

    Don, then figured 5 genuine bowlers would be an awesome advantage to have over other teams.

    Also put it this way - Including only performances before 2000 (not sure exact year he named his side) and not including players from his team, can you name an XI that would defeat Bradman's?

  12. #597
    State Vice-Captain JBMAC's Avatar
    Mahjong Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Qld/Australia
    Posts
    1,334
    Quote Originally Posted by rvd619323 View Post
    AWTA

    Opportunity cost. By selecting say, Tallon ahead of Gilchrist, you lose ~30 runs but gain some wicketkeeping ability. By selecting Gilchrist, the converse is true.

    Given wicketkeeping is impossible to analyse by statistics, but rather intuition and through player, official and fan accounts, the balance may be slightly skewed towards runs. By that I mean in the event of two wicketkeepers, and with very little evidence suggesting a large differential in wicketkeeping ability (say, Godfrey Evans vs Alan Knott; or Tallon vs Gilchrist), the selector leans towards the better batsman.

    Gilchrist probably isn't an ideal example, since his average is so far ahead of anyone else's, and his wicketkeeping was pretty damn good overall (IMO, very little would separate him from Tallon in realistic terms - Gilchrist rarely dropped anything off ATG bowlers like McGrath and Warne). However, I think it is a no-brainer in the end; for a small differential in wicketkeeping ability, you get three times the Test batsman compared to Tallon.

    The thing is, how can we categorically state that Tallon was that far superior with the gloves to Gilchrist? We can't - just like I can't categorically prove Larwood > all, or that Bradman truly was twice the batsman of anyone else in existence. We take estimations, we use the evidence available, we make judgements, we come to our own conclusions. Mine is that Gilchrist's batting (+30 runs an innings compared to Tallon) compensates for the slight drop off in wicketkeeping skill you get with him. And, I like to think, this is the mainstream view most hold; Gilchrist's batting was that exceptional that you accept slightly inferior wicketkeeping.

    And ****, by slightly inferior we're still talking about fantastic glovework. He wasn't Kamran bloody Akmal behind the sticks.
    I can't speak about Larwood but I can speak about both Tallon and Bradman having seen them play.I can categorically state Tallon was a far superior gloveman to Gilchrist and Bradman was twice the batsman of anyone I have ever seen play the game.When you are using the term"ATG" the first two picked should be those two.
    Keep Your Feet on The Ground,Keep Reaching for The Stars!

  13. #598
    International Vice-Captain Red Hill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,902
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post

    Also put it this way - Including only performances before 2000 (not sure exact year he named his side) and not including players from his team, can you name an XI that would defeat Bradman's?
    Maybe...

    Jack Hobbs
    Sunil Gavaskar
    George Headley
    Brian Lara
    Viv Richards
    Imran Khan
    Alan Knott
    Wasim Akram
    Malcolm Marshall
    Shane Warne
    SF Barnes


    Would give them a fair shake I reckon....

  14. #599
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,703
    Quote Originally Posted by NUFAN View Post
    Yeah it would look better/safer but I'm pretty certain that Bradman figured that the team only needed 5 batsman because the batsman (in particular the number 3) was so awesome.

    Don, then figured 5 genuine bowlers would be an awesome advantage to have over other teams.

    Also put it this way - Including only performances before 2000 (not sure exact year he named his side) and not including players from his team, can you name an XI that would defeat Bradman's?
    Hobbs
    Hutton
    Headley
    Pollock
    Richards
    Miller
    Ames/Knott
    Imran
    Marshall
    Warne
    Larwood

    Still leaves out Holding, Hadlee, Procter, Lara et al.
    Last edited by Dan; 27-09-2012 at 12:34 AM. Reason: Headley > Hill

  15. #600
    Dan
    Dan is offline
    Global Moderator / Cricket Web Staff Member Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
    Posts
    6,703
    Changing the topic - where does CW rate Clem Hill (and other early 20th Century players)?



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Thread Hijacks
    By sledger in forum Site Discussion
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 10-02-2010, 04:32 PM
  2. Sri Lanka Thread
    By chaminda_00 in forum 2009 ICC World Twenty20
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-05-2009, 05:29 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •